Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2018-08-15 11:41:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > BTW, independently of whether to back-patch, it strikes me that what > > we ought to do in HEAD (after applying this) is to just assume we have > > C99-compliant behavior, and rip out the baroque logic in psnprintf > > and appendPQExpBufferVA that tries to deal with pre-C99 snprintf. > > I don't expect that'd save any really meaningful number of cycles, > > but at least it'd buy back the two added instructions mentioned above. > > I suppose we could put in a configure check that verifies whether > > the system snprintf returns the right value for overrun cases, though > > it's hard to believe there are any platforms that pass the 'z' check > > and would fail this one. > > We could just mandate C99, more generally.
*cough* +1 *cough* > /me goes and hides in a bush. /me runs Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
